11

Yes, Apple's patents here are undeniably based on prior art. I'll try to answer your question best by providing details for your points, and then follow up with links to the authoritative sources. Hope this helps! :-) Prior Art as an invention Touch screens are approximately 40 years old, first built by IBM. The first publicly available touchscreen was ...


9

This seems an obvious development to stuff that opera were doing with their mini browser in 2007. In their version, you zoom to parts of the screen by tapping them. Evolving the Internet on your phone: Designing web sites with Opera Mini 4 in mind


9

It looks to me like the open-source xvkbd was performing precisely this function in 2000 - four years before the Microsoft #7,411,582 was submitted. However, it would only serve as prior art if it was usable on a touch surface? Does a touch-screen based X windows display running some UNIXy operating system count for this? I'm sure someone can show this ...


8

TweetDeck, a service now owned by Twitter, was originally released in July 2008 by Iain Dodsworth, TweetDeck largely matches all functionality within the patent with the exceptions of "domain name" (TweetDeck works on any textual form of information, domain names can be posted via the service). TweetDeck's features seem to provide prior art to invalidate ...


6

Claim 1 doesn't seem novel, everything seems to be described in an article from October 2009 (before the October 2010 filing date of this patent): "parsing the Web page file to create a document object model (DOM) tree comprising DOM tree nodes;" http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm#DOM "constructing a style caching tree comprising structure ...


4

I don't think the right standard here is whether "double tap to zoom" has been done. Rather, it needs to be separated into two parts: have people used double-tap as a user interface input, and have people used zooming as a user interface verb? If you don't separate them, you might imagine an analogous "Ctrl+Q to search" patent. While it's unlikely that ...


4

It would appear that any virtual keyboard would qualify under #7,411,582: "Soft input panel system and method.", and as the wikipedia article shows, even the general idea of intelligent work surfaces has been around since at least 1993, although if Microsoft's version is an improvement on that, it will not be relevant.


4

The bullet points quoted describe the most obvious "login" form/box that has existed since the implementation of web forms. The key element is receiving the required electronic signature data. My login to this site is, in effect, my "electronic signature data" - it identifies me and only me. Unless their patent invents a new form of electronic ...


3

As @EricS mentioned, the word algorithm will trigger the word "abstract" which is hard to get around once it is invoked. It doesn't really matter if it is one or two provisional applications since one or more non-provisionals can get the benefit of one or more provisionals. No one-to-one correspondence needed. The only reason I can think of would ...


2

If the term "selection handles" covers what is sometimes called a "bounding box", then there is a lot of prior art for #6,891,551. Software has had resizable selection mechanisms for ages. Image and audio editors frequently have resizable selection boxes. I specifically remember an audio player for BeOS (this was back in the mid/late 90's) that used ...


2

Regarding the decision of filing one or two provisional applications, George White's answer is very on point. You should be aware though that presentations of information are not patentable in many countries, for example most if not all European countries. At the EPO, this is enshrined in Art. 52(d) of the European Patent Convention. When presentations of ...


2

As previously mentioned, this is a challenging area for patentability and it is more important that you draft the application in sufficient detail to describe the practical application of the algorithm and the inventive concept of your invention so you can argue against a potential rejection under Section 101. It may not be in your best interest to file a ...


2

One could argue there is prior art from the server-side "widget" cache of phpNuke The term cache can be ambigous. The browser stores the page in memory (since Netscape 1.0 or earlier ), which is a form of cache. Additionally, modifying DOM nodes without re-rendering the whole page has been done for a long time. Certainly before 2010 that Microsoft are ...


2

The linking you describe in point 1 is very important. The patent you cited claims priority to previous patents/applications. These are all "continuations" which means they have the same specification and cover the same subject matter (as opposed to a "continuation-in-part" or "divisional" which may have different subject matter). Since they have this ...


2

The concept of "electronic signature" made me think straight away of GPG. Does a a web interface requiring public-key signatures come close to this? What is FireGPG? There's a small bit on that page talking about a fireGPG "API that allows you to design a website that uses GPG's features on the client; for example to autheticate a user for an ...


2

It means that any software that uses it is possibly in violation. But whether you're actually finally found guilty of being in violation is up to a jury to decide. You could, however, be sued at any time which means- unless you have very significant legal reserves typically into the millions of dollars- an end to your product and or company. Virtually ...


1

An option you may have overlooked is that patented technology can be licensed, and in fact this is usually the case for commonly used patents. However, in this case, applications typically will use the platform's own scrolling API (so on Windows they will use Microsoft's own scroll functionality) so there is no conflict.


1

You should also investigate PKI as this has been used to sign documents for quite some time. You might want to contact Verisign or Network Solutions to see if they can provide you with prior art as they most likely do. Frankly their patent is laughably easy to work around.


1

The '915 patent was one of the patents Apple asserted in both the Samsung case and the HTC case. It is now in an exparte reexamination that I believe was initiated anonymously. Anyone can follow it in Public PAIR. The effective application number for the reexamination is 90/012,332. The claim 1 above and several others have been rejected in a non-final ...


1

There is mention of the pinch gesture dating back to 1983 in Bill Buxton's article here.


1

Puma 'Sattelite Forms' and Symbol were working on a browser for the Symbol Ruggedized devices in 1998 that had a double tap (With a stylus) to zoom in on a picture. Unfortunately I don't know there would be many examples now that PalmOS is defunct. Might be a good area to research though.


1

This seems to be a little more than a double tap and zoom patent. This is like double tap and zoom on your tablet and it zooms on your laptop also. But it's interesting that the patent was filed 4 days after that opera article came out.


1

It seems to me that US5778372 could be simply described as a web browser loading a web page with a background element on the body tag. The background tag was introduced in the HTML3.0 spec. The following is a quote from a draft dated 28th March 1995 BACKGROUND This can be used to specify a URI for an image tile to cover the document ...


1

There may be prior art inherent in the product of the late, lamented FineGround. The product was a reverse proxy you could put in front of your web site to improve performance for end users. In addition to stuff like caching gzipped copies of images, it could analyze HTML pages, determine which parts changed on subsequent loads and which didn't, and inject ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible